Thursday, September 20, 2012

Well, At Least "Schulz" Wasn't Spelled with a "T"...

Just recently, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL gave a shout-out to the second volume in the Fantagraphics Barks library. All credit to reviewer Tim Marchman and the WSJ editors who green-lighted this review, but the piece could have done with one or two additional fact-checks. We certainly wouldn't want the readers of this august journal to think that Carl Barks' Ducks lived in "Duckville," or that the seminal Barks $CROOGE story was titled "Only a Poor Man." I'm not too thrilled about that reference to George "Harriman," either.

The weirdest thing about the review that isn't an error is the puzzling comment that the way Japanese manga and anime artists depict "saucer-shaped" eyes was influenced by Barks. Readers of this blog will remember that Osamu Tezuka did correspond with Barks on at least one memorable occasion. Considering Tezuka's vast influence on the subsequent direction of Japanese comics and animation, Tezuka's enthusiasm for Barks' work may have rubbed off on some of the "Manga God"'s peers. Still, this is a fairly broad generalization to make, no?

3 comments:

“We certainly wouldn't want the readers of this august journal to think that (1:) Carl Barks' Ducks lived in "Duckville," or that the seminal Barks $CROOGE story was titled (2:) "Only a Poor Man." I'm not too thrilled about that reference to (3:) George "Harriman," either.”

Easily explained, Chris!

(1:) "Duckville". The author accidently picked up a BABY HUEY comic, thinking it was about one of the nephews.

(2:) "Only a Poor Man". This was about Scrooge’s brief period in “The 47 Percent”! Look it up in “Life and Times”.

(3:) George "Harriman". Perhaps he meant “Averell Harriman". As governor in the ‘50s he was “…like, a ca-raa-zy cat”!

I'm thrilled to see that the WSJ not only printed a review of Vol. 2, but that it was a strikingly glowing review. I'd hoped that Fantagraphics' efforts would earn Barks wider recognition and higher regard in the U.S., and in that regard, this review is only a positive development...

...but, yes, those errors(*) are irritating, eh? If the Journal wants to have a regularly comics review column, I know of a few bloggers who would never have made such mistakes... ;)

Baby steps. The WSJ has been trying to remake itself as a more "conventional" newspaper for some time and does have a pretty decent "cultural" section. I miss the defunct NEW YORK SUN, which had an even better one AND gave a different ideological perspective on high and semi-high culture than New Yorkers were used to.